This is all pretty standard with GDPR.

Who out there is going to be feeding patient medical data to Mythos/Fable?

Whoever Anthropic can convince, to help them form a competitor to OpenEvidence, who already feed patient medical data into their systems.

...the same groups who are currently feeding it to Sonnet and Opus?

Well, they won't be feeding it to Fable unless Anthropic can provide a signed BAA.

It's worthwhile to remember that this is only true of Mythos/Fable and other future models of "similar or higher capability levels" (ant is treating this as a new tier of model above Opus). Anyone who's already been happy using Haiku/Sonnet/Opus on Bedrock will not be affected by this at all.

Yes and no. Anthropic controls what is determined to be "similar or higher" and when models are deprecated. Will sonnet 4.7 be "too powerful"? Because once it's released. 4.6's days are numbered.

This created a huge future risk for our org and we're already scheduling meetings over it. Regulated industry, we can't lose control over our data governance or residency controls, let alone the lack of visible audit trails that could reveal customer or PII.

Just an absolute bomb of a release

>Anyone who's already been happy using Haiku/Sonnet/Opus on Bedrock will not be affected by this at all

It is still adding operational overhead because we now need to vet all models and deny access to any retaining data

Previously it was "use and experiment with anything Bedrock offers--the data stays in AWS so we are not concerned"

My speculation on this has been that it's potentially a factor against ai psychosis, as psychosis risk (of any psychosis) is significantly elevated with lack of sleep. If you read case studies of ai psychosis, many of them also involve people staying up way too long right before they fall on a bad path.

Having tried GLM-5 and Minimax M2.5, alongside regularly using Opus 4.6 (on default thinking): Opus is still much, much better at writing non-garbage code. I haven't yet tried GLM-5.1 though.

That's what hegseth says, but the law doesn't really say that AFAICT.

I call it department of war, because I think it is a great self-own on their part to do such a rename.

There will be no fighting in the war room!

This is pretty disconnected to how EU has been behaving towards both startups and AI.

I can assure you that south east asians also still have cards, despite not making most of their payments with it. Not all ATMs support withdrawing with just a QR code from all banks, for one.

There are benefits to non-QR based payment systems, such as not wanting to pull out your phone, open an app, scan a QR and approve to make a payment that takes me 2 seconds with regular contactless payments.

Physical cards are also a nice fallback to have in cases of running out of battery, theft, etc.

We do actually. The German Girocards were, until Maestro ceased to exist, often co-issued as Maestro + Girocard, and global acceptance was pretty good under the Mastercard network.

There are examples of other co-branded national payment systems out there (troy + Discover comes to mind).

If a European payment system (with cards, at a store) is to exist, then visa/mc will still want a piece of the pie by at least playing along to remain as a co-brand and taking their cuts from international payments.